\n- Choose the route after you decide what you are buying: equipment and technology supply, a design-build package, a design-build-operate contract, or processing services.<\/li>\n
- RFPs fit technology selection; sealed bids fit well-specified construction. A two-step process (qualifications first, then proposals) narrows the field before vendors spend money on full proposals.<\/li>\n
- State and local law governs every purchase. Federal Uniform Guidance rules are added on top when a federal award pays for any part of it.<\/li>\n
- Sole source needs a documented reason that fits a listed exception. “We liked the pilot” is not one.<\/li>\n
- Vendor help in drafting an RFP is common, but under federal rules it can bar that vendor from competing. Decide who writes the specification before anyone does.<\/li>\n
- Keep a complete procurement file from day one: the method chosen and why, the evaluation, the award and the price basis.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Start with what you are buying<\/h2>\n
The procurement route follows the scope. Settle it with your purchasing office before choosing a method.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n| What you are buying<\/th>\n | Typical route<\/th>\n | Why<\/th>\n | Watch for<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n |
\n\n| Composting technology and equipment (aeration, covers, controls, training)<\/td>\n | Request for proposals<\/td>\n | Methods differ; evidence and lifecycle cost matter<\/td>\n | Publish evaluation factors and weights<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\n| Pad, utilities, stormwater and site civil work<\/td>\n | Invitation for bids (sealed bid)<\/td>\n | Design is complete and price decides<\/td>\n | Specification must be complete<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\n| Design and construction in one contract<\/td>\n | Design-build solicitation<\/td>\n | One point of accountability<\/td>\n | Check state authority and conflict-of-interest rules<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\n| Design, construction and long-term operation<\/td>\n | Design-build-operate RFP<\/td>\n | Performance over a contract term<\/td>\n | Few bidders; long commitment<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\n| Engineering design or owner’s engineer<\/td>\n | Qualifications-based selection<\/td>\n | Price is negotiated after selection<\/td>\n | Under federal rules, limited to architectural and engineering services<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\n| Short-term pilot or lease<\/td>\n | Small purchase, RFP or approved exception<\/td>\n | Short scope, often lower value<\/td>\n | Decide now whether the later permanent purchase will be competed separately<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
\n| Processing at someone else’s facility<\/td>\n | RFP for services<\/td>\n | Capacity, permits and contamination terms matter<\/td>\n | Term length and minimum tonnage<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n The operating models guide<\/a> explains how each model shifts risk. This guide covers how to buy once the model is chosen.<\/p>\nThe main routes<\/h2>\nInvitation for bids (sealed bid)<\/h3>\nAward goes to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. Under the federal Uniform Guidance, 2 CFR 200.320(b)(1)<\/a> says sealed bidding is feasible when a complete, adequate and realistic specification is available, two or more responsible bidders are willing to compete, and selection can be made principally on price. It also says the method is preferred for procuring construction services, that local governments must publicly advertise the invitation and open bids publicly, and that life-cycle costs must be considered in finding the lowest bid when the invitation says so. That last point is useful: an invitation for bids can still account for operating cost if the agency builds it in.<\/p>\nUse it for<\/strong> pad construction, utilities, fencing and other work designed in full by your engineer. Avoid it for<\/strong> technology selection, where you would have to write one method into the specification to make bids comparable.<\/p>\nRequest for proposals<\/h3>\nProposals are evaluated on price and other published factors. Under 2 CFR 200.320(b)(2)<\/a>, proposals are used when conditions are not appropriate for sealed bids; the RFP requires public notice; all evaluation factors and their relative importance must be identified; proposals must be solicited from multiple qualified entities; the agency must have written procedures for technical evaluation; and award goes to the responsible offeror whose proposal is most advantageous considering price and other factors.<\/p>\nThe RFP guide<\/a> covers what to specify, what evidence to require and how to score.<\/p>\nRFQ, then RFP (two-step)<\/h3>\nA request for qualifications first screens firms on experience, references, financial strength and similar factors. Only the shortlisted firms receive the full RFP. This saves effort on both sides when the proposal requires site-specific design. Confirm that your procurement code allows prequalification for this kind of purchase. For federally funded procurements, 2 CFR 200.319(e)<\/a> requires prequalified lists to be current, to include enough qualified sources for maximum open competition, and not to stop potential bidders from qualifying during the solicitation period.<\/p>\nDesign-build<\/h3>\nOne entity designs and builds. Authority comes from state law, and it varies. In California, Public Contract Code section 22162<\/a> lets a local agency, with approval of its governing body, procure design-build contracts above a minimum project size, awarding on low bid or best value, and requires the agency to develop an organizational conflict-of-interest policy that addresses whether a firm that helped prepare the solicitation may then propose. Section 22161<\/a> defines best value as an evaluation of objective criteria related to price, features, functions, life-cycle costs, experience and past performance, and it limits which projects qualify: for a city or county, mainly buildings and directly related improvements, plus regional and local solid waste facilities where the city or county operates solid waste facilities. Special districts that operate solid waste facilities are also covered. The chapter is set to be repealed on January 1, 2031. Other states authorize design-build differently or not at all for local agencies. Have counsel confirm that your agency and your project type qualify before you plan around it.<\/p>\nSole source and other noncompetitive purchases<\/h3>\nNoncompetitive procurement is an exception, and every code lists when it is allowed. For federally funded purchases, 2 CFR 200.320(c)<\/a> allows it only when the purchase is within the micro-purchase threshold, can only be fulfilled by a single source, is needed for a public exigency or emergency that will not permit the delay of public notice, is approved in writing by the federal agency or pass-through entity on request, or follows a solicitation of several sources in which competition was found inadequate.<\/p>\nState law has its own list. In California, Public Contract Code section 3400<\/a> bars public works specifications that limit bidding to one concern or name a brand without “or equal”, unless the awarding authority makes a finding, described in the invitation or RFP, that the brand is designated for a field test or experiment, to match other products in use on the same improvement, to obtain an item available from only one source, or to respond to a declared emergency.<\/p>\nTwo practical points follow. A pilot of one supplier’s system does not by itself justify buying that system without competition. And if your purpose is to test a specific product, say so in the solicitation and make the finding your code requires.<\/p>\n Cooperative purchasing and piggybacking<\/h3>\nMany agencies buy from contracts that another public agency or a purchasing cooperative has already competed. Whether you may do this depends on your state and local law and on the terms of the original contract: it must have been competitively awarded, must allow other agencies to use it, and must cover what you are buying. For federally funded purchases, 2 CFR 200.318(e)<\/a> encourages state and local intergovernmental agreements or inter-entity agreements for common or shared goods and services, and says documented procurement actions of this type meet the part’s competition requirements. That does not make every cooperative contract usable with federal money: confirm with the federal agency or pass-through entity, in writing, that the contract you plan to use is acceptable under the award.<\/p>\nComposting systems are often site-specific, so check that any cooperative contract you consider actually covers the design, equipment and services your project needs. Ask every vendor which public contracts, if any, it holds, and confirm the answer with the lead agency that awarded the contract.<\/p>\n If federal money is involved<\/h2>\nWhen a federal award pays for any part of the purchase, the procurement standards in 2 CFR Part 200 apply to it. As of October 2026, 2 CFR 200.317<\/a> requires states to follow their own procedures (plus certain listed sections), and all other recipients and subrecipients, including cities and counties, to follow sections 200.318 through 200.327. Key points for a composting procurement:<\/p>\n\n- Drafting conflicts.<\/strong> 2 CFR 200.319(b)<\/a>: contractors that develop or draft specifications, requirements, statements of work or invitations for bids must be excluded from competing on those procurements.<\/li>\n
- Restrictive practices.<\/strong> The same section lists, among others, unnecessary experience and excessive bonding requirements, organizational conflicts of interest, and specifying only a brand name instead of allowing an equal product.<\/li>\n
- Clear requirements.<\/strong> Solicitations must describe the technical requirements clearly; detailed product specifications should be avoided if at all possible.<\/li>\n
- Records.<\/strong> 2 CFR 200.318(i)<\/a> requires records detailing the history of each procurement, including the rationale for the method, contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the price.<\/li>\n
- Small and disadvantaged businesses.<\/strong> 2 CFR 200.321<\/a> lists affirmative steps to consider small businesses, minority businesses, women’s business enterprises, veteran-owned businesses and labor surplus area firms.<\/li>\n
- Contract clauses.<\/strong> 2 CFR 200.327<\/a> requires the applicable provisions of Appendix II in your contracts.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Grant programs may add their own conditions. The funding guide<\/a> and the list of grants for organics infrastructure cover program status.<\/p>\nWho writes the specification<\/h2>\nSuppliers often offer to help. Sustainable Generation (SG), for example, lists RFP assistance among its project initiation services<\/a>, alongside feasibility studies, site selection, financial and technical evaluation, environmental compliance and grant support. That help is legitimate for many projects. The conflict arises when the same supplier then wants to compete on a federally funded procurement it helped write, or when your state or local code (such as California’s design-build conflict-of-interest requirement) restricts it.<\/p>\nSafer ways to get technical input:<\/p>\n \n- Issue a request for information that every supplier can answer, and use the answers to write a neutral specification.<\/li>\n
- Hire an independent owner’s engineer to draft the RFP.<\/li>\n
- If a supplier helps with feasibility or a pilot, document what it contributed and get a ruling from counsel before the solicitation goes out.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
|